last warning

No. Not yet. You haven't been incivil since your last warning. Like I say, we've had discussions in the past, and I consider you a good editor. But this doesn't excuse endless incivility. Seriously, just try and keep cool while in disputes with people, instead of swearing at them, threatening them, and reverting their non-vandalism edits with Twinkle, and you'll continue to be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Dreaded Walrustc 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

whats so different about twinkle that i cant use it?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 08:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed to use Twinkle, guy. But it's there for reverting vandalism. As in this = good, but this or this or this = not good. It's a similar thing with Rollback, which I was given last month. It should be used for vandalism only. Just be sure to only use it for vandalism, and revert other edits you disagree with manually. You're allowed to remove messages from your talk page, but using Twinkle to do it labels the message as vandalism, which they usually aren't. Dreaded Walrustc 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

the first one was vandalism, the second one he called me foolish (if you know my life story you would know that this is worse the all the 4 letter words combined for me) the third one ??? i dont know what that is about and the 4th one u know i used undo, not twinkle--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was exactly my point that the first one was vandalism, hence why I said it was good usage of the tool. :)

The second one, you called someone a moron, and he said you should "stop acting foolish". While this is probably just my opinion, it's not something I would consider as a personal attack, in those circumstances.

The third one was you giving him a warning for removing messages from his talk page, which is how me and you met! :P

And if the fourth one really was undo, then your edit summary for the edit was misleading, as it says that you "Reverted 1 edit by Fox816 identified as vandalism to last revision by Pairadox. using TW", which is the edit summary used by Twinkle. Dreaded Walrustc 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeaaarg

Well hello there matey mate. Long time no talk, yes?-CamT|C 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, nice to see you're back on WP, you gallivanter you. :P Dreaded Walrustc 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

About links

Hey there. Not sure how I can send a message to you, but I guess I'm just supposed to edit this page.

Anyway, I was adding some links of a website with Japanese band profiles to wikipedia pages of those bands. I thought I'd add them, seeing as they contain more detailed biographical information, details on the discography, and articles such as live reports, interviews and reviews of that particular artist as well as the latest news. Seeing as this site offers more in-depth information than what's displayed on wikipedia, I thought this would be a valuable addition.

According to you it's not seeing as you've removed them all, but when I read the spam file about external links, it does not seem to me that I've been breaking any of the rules (+ it's a non-profit site...). So why delete them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithredat (talk • contribs)

Hiya. Don't worry, you're doing the right way. There is a button at the top of talk pages that looks like a little plus sign (+), and if you click that, you'll start a new discussion. After that, if you want to reply to someone in a thread, just click the "[edit]" button to the right of that heading.

With regards to the links I've removed, I'm not sure I'm familiar with what you're talking about. I've looked at your contributions, and this is a new account. Could you tell me what your other account name was , or at least the articles in question that you edited, so that I could look at what I removed, and explain further? As it stands, I'm not sure I remember what case you're talking about. Thanks. Dreaded Walrustc 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit I made that you reverted..

Thanks. *facepalm* I looked at those links 3 times, and I STILL managed to miss the difference. Sheesh. Anyway, I appreciate you catching my mistake. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I had to look at them a few times myself to make sure they were different, and I was the one who put them there originally! :) Dreaded Walrustc 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, alright.

Need a rollback

88.88.23.109 (talk·contribs) has been busy "de-formatting" a whole bunch of articles away from their proper WP:ALBUM guidelines. Created a lot and re-directs... ignored the WP:ALBUM rules... etc. Many have been reverted. But he's a busy boy and made several attempts at some of his article edits and so some remain undone. Too many for me to browse through. One simple magical undo will be much easier. Know anyone who can do that? :D 156.34.216.55 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I took the invitation and reverted, though it does get frustrating when the rollback function is throttled to five every minute or so. I might have reverted some genuine edits in the process, so apologies if so. And, hope I haven't abused rollbacker rights. Dreaded Walrustc 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good show, guys. Don't worry, Walrus, I'll turn a blind eye ;-) - Naw, it looks like the guy was being an ass so that's a good reason to use the rollback function. Good job. ScarianCall me Pat 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Can you please use it for the edits of this user [1]. He seeming doing propaganda for a website. --Be happy!! (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean I can do it one by one. But if you can do it quickly all at a time, it would be better. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do one by one. They are not many at the moment. --Be happy!! (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User:Edgarde got to it. I'll keep an eye out for more spam from him in the near future. :) Dreaded Walrustc 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

77.96.141.254 has been linking pages in the same domain. I don't understand the linkage, but the sales pitch is not included, so I haven't touched those. / edg☺☭ 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQ editwars

Hi - hopefully that will not develop into a full-blown edit war - I've asked that Aminz tries to get consensus on the talkpage before making those additions, hopefully he will do so. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. It was basically Aminz revert warring against the consensus of everyone else. Hopefully he'll continue to attempt to reach a consensus, or accept the current (and foreseeable future) consensus that that section doesn't really warrant being in the FAQ. I checked out the images talk page just now, and the majority of it flies completely over my head (particularly this section), hence why I only have the FAQ on my watchlist. I'll attempt to explain the point of the FAQ to Aminz, and hopefully he will see why his question is not quite right for inclusion. Dreaded Walrustc 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy on these talkspace "consensus" FAQ pages is far from clear to me. Are you aware of any policy statements on them beyond what applies to talk pages in general? --BozMotalk 12:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure on the policies regarding these things (if there are indeed any specific policies at all). In the past I have seen a similar thing at Talk:Habbo (see the box on the right, displaying Talk:Habbo/FAQ), using {{FAQ}}, and according to the what links here for that template, there are similar things on other talk pages, including Talk:Abortion, and Talk:Fox News Channel, among others. When I first came across Talk:Muhammad/FAQ (which doesn't appear on the whatlinkshere, as it isn't transcluded via the template, merely linked. There could be other similar FAQS), it looked like this. It has changed quite a bit since then, but one thing that remains the same is that at the top, the following text appears:

This page was created in response to certain topics being brought up again and again on Talk:Muhammad, sapping many editors' time and energy by forcing them to respond repeatedly to the same issues.

While I am not sure what the exact basis in policy for this is (perhaps it would be best to ask User:AzaToth, as the originator of {{FAQ}}), it was that part of the FAQ that I was referring to when I say that Aminz's point is not quite right for inclusion, as he is pretty much the only person asking it. Dreaded Walrustc 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)